Chiraq Jefe wrote:Right compare the worst hoods cause the population is different. That's what you said....since B-more lacking in Chicago yuppie, hipster, middle class CEOs population and neighborhoods compare the hoods.....that's why I am saying people talking about semantics....

Remember I already did that but you know niggas can't accept it. The most dangerous area in Baltimore is the Eastern district which had 49 murders with a population of 50,000+ while Garfield park had 57 murders with a little over 38,000 people. They say it's some white people in that area but even if that is true, it's still a majority black area and when you take the whites out, you still have a sizable black population comparable to that of Garfield park.

Chiraq Jefe wrote:Right compare the worst hoods cause the population is different. That's what you said....since B-more lacking in Chicago yuppie, hipster, middle class CEOs population and neighborhoods compare the hoods.....that's why I am saying people talking about semantics....

Remember I already did that but you know niggas can't accept it. The most dangerous area in Baltimore is the Eastern district which had 49 murders with a population of 50,000+ while Garfield park had 57 murders with a little over 38,000 people. They say it's some white people in that area but even if that is true, it's still a majority black area and when you take the whites out, you still have a sizable black population comparable to that of Garfield park.

Why Are Shootings Deadlier In Some Cities Than Others?
We need better data to find out.

By Jeff Asher

Filed under Criminal Justice
Murder is a bad statistic for measuring gun violence, yet almost any discussion of gun violence in the United States requires its use.

Consider the cases of Baltimore and Chicago in 2016 to see why murder can be misleading. Chicago, despite its reputation for violence, last year had roughly 28 murders per 100,000 residents, which ranked eighth-highest among big cities1 in a FiveThirtyEight analysis of 2016 murder rates. Baltimore, by contrast, had the second-highest murder rate in the country, at 51 per 100,000 people. Because firearms are involved in the vast majority of murders,2 those statistics might make it sound like gun violence is a far bigger problem in Baltimore than Chicago.3
But the opposite is true: Chicago last year had more shootings4 per capita than Baltimore. It’s just that a smaller share of Chicago’s shooting victims ended up dying.

Shootings are a better measure of gun violence than murders are. There is a lot of randomness in what happens once a bullet leaves a gun — whether someone lives or dies depends heavily on luck. Focusing just on murder leaves out all the people who could have died. And it ignores the life-changing injuries and emotional trauma that often accompany nonfatal shootings.5
But gun violence researchers are often forced to focus on murders rather than shootings for one simple reason: better data. Cities are not required by the FBI to track shootings specifically, and many cities choose not to count them.6 Some big cities that had high murder rates in 2016 — such as St. Louis and Memphis, Tennessee — do not collect shooting victim data. And even cities that do collect and release data on shootings often leave out key details; many, for example, don’t distinguish publicly between fatal and nonfatal shootings.

The uneven data collection leaves a major gap in our understanding of gun violence. Looking at shootings, it turns out, shows that the cities with the worst murder rates do not inherently have the highest rates of gun violence victimization, as measured by shooting victims per capita. Murder rates, therefore, may better serve as a measure of how lethal shootings in a city are than as a measure of that city’s overall level of gun violence.

I was able to collect shooting victim data for 2016 on 17 cities7 using information that is publicly available and requests to individual police departments. For nine of the 17 cities, I accessed shooting victim counts through publicly available official data sources. Six of the cities provided totals upon request, and data for the final two cities was taken from private citizens who keep running shooting totals.8

Below, I’ve laid out the number of 2016 shooting victims for each of the 17 cities, as well as the rate of shooting victims and the murder rate (both per 100,000 residents).9 As the table makes clear, there is a relationship between shootings and murders — places with more shootings also tend to have more murders — but it is imperfect. Cincinnati, for example, is one of the most violent cities on the list, as measured by shootings, despite having comparatively few murders. Newark is the opposite: a city with more murders than its shooting rate would suggest.

What explains the disconnect? On the most basic level, shooting rates don’t always align with murder rates because shootings are more deadly in some cities than others. I was able to get a breakdown between fatal and nonfatal shootings10 for 14 of the above 17 cities through a mix of publicly available data, requests to police departments and private citizen tallies. Looking at gun violence like this shows that Baltimore had the highest murder rate among the 14 cities in 2016 because shootings were more lethal there.

Baltimore didn’t just have one bad year. The city’s shootings have been unusually deadly since at least 2011. I collected fatal/nonfatal shooting data for the 14 cities for the last several years and found that the share of shootings that are fatal appears to be relatively stable for each city from year to year.11 The chart below shows the eight cities with more than 350 shooting victims per year and at least three years’ worth of data. The only city with a clear trend is Milwaukee, where shootings have steadily gotten more deadly since 2011.

asher-shootings-0220_2
Competing explanations

It appears, then, that shootings in Baltimore and New Orleans tend to be more deadly than those in Chicago, contributing to the former two having consistently higher murder rates than Chicago. What isn’t clear is why. Answering this question would provide tremendous insight into the mechanics of gun violence in U.S. cities and could help cities devise strategies for lowering their murder rates. But the question is hard to answer without more complete, more detailed data.

Experts have several theories. One possibility: different guns. Last year, Justin George, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, looked into why shootings in Baltimore are so lethal. George’s story says that higher-caliber firearms with bigger magazines seem to be replacing older firearms in places like Baltimore and Milwaukee. It’s possible that shootings are more deadly in Baltimore than in Chicago because criminals in Baltimore use more powerful guns or fire more bullets per shooting incident — but testing whether that’s the case isn’t possible with the data currently available.

Different tactics by shooters may also help explain the different levels of lethality among cities. In an interview, George told me that many killings in Baltimore are targeted. He cited a recent incident in which a gunman entered a barbershop and shot a customer waiting for a haircut. “The entire shop was full of customers, but they only hit him,” George said. Surveillance tape shows one of the gunmen return to the shop, he said, to see if the victim was dead.

In Los Angeles, by contrast, shootings tend to be more random. In an interview, John Skaggs, an LA homicide detective who was the protagonist of Jill Leovy’s 2015 book “Ghettoside,” described the typical killing there: “Somebody is driving down the street, they see a potential victim, usually a young black male in gang territory, and that becomes the next victim. That’s your typical gang shooting in LA. From what I’ve read about the East Coast, it’s much more targeted.” (Shootings in Los Angeles do appear to be less lethal than in Baltimore: There were 234 more people shot in Los Angeles than Baltimore last year, but the latter reported 24 more murders.)

Some other experts have speculated that differences in shooting death rates could be tied to differences in emergency medical care: Gunshot victims are more likely to survive if they arrive quickly to a high-quality trauma center. By that logic, however, Baltimore should be one of the least lethal cities in the country. Dr. Sahael Stapleton, a surgeon who previously conducted research at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, points out that Baltimore gun violence takes place in relatively concentrated areas near the city’s state-of-the-art trauma center.

Better data

There may be dozens or hundreds of other factors — the placement of ambulances or the amount of street lighting, for example — that may help explain why shootings in certain cities are more lethal than those in others. Without further research, however, it’s impossible to say for sure what drives these differences.

That research won’t be possible until cities begin collecting and making public data on shootings, not just murders. Philadelphia’s shooting victim open data portal is an excellent model. Some cities have begun producing annual reports on homicide or gun violence, which is a good start.

Until more cities follow suit, however, we are left with a mystery that has life or death consequences and little data to help solve it.

Jeff Asher is a crime analyst based in New Orleans and used to work for the city as a crime analyst. He runs the NOLA Crime News data analysis blog. @crimealytics

^ article written & all that info was looked up /researched by a crime Analyst(kinda similiar to article a posted awhile ago about cities where ya chances are dying from being shot are higher..due to stats of headshots /chest up are more common in some cities more then others..bmore new orleans topped them city list)

Q. wrote:Why Are Shootings Deadlier In Some Cities Than Others?
We need better data to find out.

By Jeff Asher

Filed under Criminal Justice
Murder is a bad statistic for measuring gun violence, yet almost any discussion of gun violence in the United States requires its use.

Consider the cases of Baltimore and Chicago in 2016 to see why murder can be misleading. Chicago, despite its reputation for violence, last year had roughly 28 murders per 100,000 residents, which ranked eighth-highest among big cities1 in a FiveThirtyEight analysis of 2016 murder rates. Baltimore, by contrast, had the second-highest murder rate in the country, at 51 per 100,000 people. Because firearms are involved in the vast majority of murders,2 those statistics might make it sound like gun violence is a far bigger problem in Baltimore than Chicago.3
But the opposite is true: Chicago last year had more shootings4 per capita than Baltimore. It’s just that a smaller share of Chicago’s shooting victims ended up dying.

Shootings are a better measure of gun violence than murders are. There is a lot of randomness in what happens once a bullet leaves a gun — whether someone lives or dies depends heavily on luck. Focusing just on murder leaves out all the people who could have died. And it ignores the life-changing injuries and emotional trauma that often accompany nonfatal shootings.5
But gun violence researchers are often forced to focus on murders rather than shootings for one simple reason: better data. Cities are not required by the FBI to track shootings specifically, and many cities choose not to count them.6 Some big cities that had high murder rates in 2016 — such as St. Louis and Memphis, Tennessee — do not collect shooting victim data. And even cities that do collect and release data on shootings often leave out key details; many, for example, don’t distinguish publicly between fatal and nonfatal shootings.

The uneven data collection leaves a major gap in our understanding of gun violence. Looking at shootings, it turns out, shows that the cities with the worst murder rates do not inherently have the highest rates of gun violence victimization, as measured by shooting victims per capita. Murder rates, therefore, may better serve as a measure of how lethal shootings in a city are than as a measure of that city’s overall level of gun violence.

I was able to collect shooting victim data for 2016 on 17 cities7 using information that is publicly available and requests to individual police departments. For nine of the 17 cities, I accessed shooting victim counts through publicly available official data sources. Six of the cities provided totals upon request, and data for the final two cities was taken from private citizens who keep running shooting totals.8

Below, I’ve laid out the number of 2016 shooting victims for each of the 17 cities, as well as the rate of shooting victims and the murder rate (both per 100,000 residents).9 As the table makes clear, there is a relationship between shootings and murders — places with more shootings also tend to have more murders — but it is imperfect. Cincinnati, for example, is one of the most violent cities on the list, as measured by shootings, despite having comparatively few murders. Newark is the opposite: a city with more murders than its shooting rate would suggest.

What explains the disconnect? On the most basic level, shooting rates don’t always align with murder rates because shootings are more deadly in some cities than others. I was able to get a breakdown between fatal and nonfatal shootings10 for 14 of the above 17 cities through a mix of publicly available data, requests to police departments and private citizen tallies. Looking at gun violence like this shows that Baltimore had the highest murder rate among the 14 cities in 2016 because shootings were more lethal there.

Baltimore didn’t just have one bad year. The city’s shootings have been unusually deadly since at least 2011. I collected fatal/nonfatal shooting data for the 14 cities for the last several years and found that the share of shootings that are fatal appears to be relatively stable for each city from year to year.11 The chart below shows the eight cities with more than 350 shooting victims per year and at least three years’ worth of data. The only city with a clear trend is Milwaukee, where shootings have steadily gotten more deadly since 2011.

asher-shootings-0220_2
Competing explanations

It appears, then, that shootings in Baltimore and New Orleans tend to be more deadly than those in Chicago, contributing to the former two having consistently higher murder rates than Chicago. What isn’t clear is why. Answering this question would provide tremendous insight into the mechanics of gun violence in U.S. cities and could help cities devise strategies for lowering their murder rates. But the question is hard to answer without more complete, more detailed data.

Experts have several theories. One possibility: different guns. Last year, Justin George, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, looked into why shootings in Baltimore are so lethal. George’s story says that higher-caliber firearms with bigger magazines seem to be replacing older firearms in places like Baltimore and Milwaukee. It’s possible that shootings are more deadly in Baltimore than in Chicago because criminals in Baltimore use more powerful guns or fire more bullets per shooting incident — but testing whether that’s the case isn’t possible with the data currently available.

Different tactics by shooters may also help explain the different levels of lethality among cities. In an interview, George told me that many killings in Baltimore are targeted. He cited a recent incident in which a gunman entered a barbershop and shot a customer waiting for a haircut. “The entire shop was full of customers, but they only hit him,” George said. Surveillance tape shows one of the gunmen return to the shop, he said, to see if the victim was dead.

In Los Angeles, by contrast, shootings tend to be more random. In an interview, John Skaggs, an LA homicide detective who was the protagonist of Jill Leovy’s 2015 book “Ghettoside,” described the typical killing there: “Somebody is driving down the street, they see a potential victim, usually a young black male in gang territory, and that becomes the next victim. That’s your typical gang shooting in LA. From what I’ve read about the East Coast, it’s much more targeted.” (Shootings in Los Angeles do appear to be less lethal than in Baltimore: There were 234 more people shot in Los Angeles than Baltimore last year, but the latter reported 24 more murders.)

Some other experts have speculated that differences in shooting death rates could be tied to differences in emergency medical care: Gunshot victims are more likely to survive if they arrive quickly to a high-quality trauma center. By that logic, however, Baltimore should be one of the least lethal cities in the country. Dr. Sahael Stapleton, a surgeon who previously conducted research at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, points out that Baltimore gun violence takes place in relatively concentrated areas near the city’s state-of-the-art trauma center.

Better data

There may be dozens or hundreds of other factors — the placement of ambulances or the amount of street lighting, for example — that may help explain why shootings in certain cities are more lethal than those in others. Without further research, however, it’s impossible to say for sure what drives these differences.

That research won’t be possible until cities begin collecting and making public data on shootings, not just murders. Philadelphia’s shooting victim open data portal is an excellent model. Some cities have begun producing annual reports on homicide or gun violence, which is a good start.

Until more cities follow suit, however, we are left with a mystery that has life or death consequences and little data to help solve it.

Jeff Asher is a crime analyst based in New Orleans and used to work for the city as a crime analyst. He runs the NOLA Crime News data analysis blog. @crimealytics

Maybe yall reflex just be too slow out there in Baltimore and New Orleans. No lackin is a lifestyle in Chiraq @5:40 mark

Returning fire can be the difference between someone standing over you and finishing you off and them having to fall back. Dude in the video returned fire on the spot within seconds and that's why he most likely still alive, just saying...

Returning fire can be the difference between someone standing over you and finishing you off and them having to fall back. Dude in the video returned fire on the spot within seconds and that's why he most likely still alive, just saying...

u shouldn't speak on anything street or shooting related if a whole city got over 4000 people shot n only 700 deaths from those people shot then that means people who's shot in that city is more likely to survive being shot return fire means nothing 1 bullet is all it takes to kill any human. 4000 sot 700 deaths look at the difference in other cities ull see like 400 shot 200 plus deaths some be like 100 shot 65 plus deaths u see the difference sme is makin sure they shoot to kill

Returning fire can be the difference between someone standing over you and finishing you off and them having to fall back. Dude in the video returned fire on the spot within seconds and that's why he most likely still alive, just saying...

u shouldn't speak on anything street or shooting related if a whole city got over 4000 people shot n only 700 deaths from those people shot then that means people who's shot in that city is more likely to survive being shot return fire means nothing 1 bullet is all it takes to kill any human. 4000 sot 700 deaths look at the difference in other cities ull see like 400 shot 200 plus deaths some be like 100 shot 65 plus deaths u see the difference sme is makin sure they shoot to kill

Returning fire means everything. Staying alert means everything. To be aware is to be alive. If you on point, a nigga can't just get up on you and do you any kind of way. Here go another example right here. Buddy was alert and didn't let the shooters get up on him. In Chiraq that's what we call #NoLackin

Returning fire can be the difference between someone standing over you and finishing you off and them having to fall back. Dude in the video returned fire on the spot within seconds and that's why he most likely still alive, just saying...

u shouldn't speak on anything street or shooting related if a whole city got over 4000 people shot n only 700 deaths from those people shot then that means people who's shot in that city is more likely to survive being shot return fire means nothing 1 bullet is all it takes to kill any human. 4000 sot 700 deaths look at the difference in other cities ull see like 400 shot 200 plus deaths some be like 100 shot 65 plus deaths u see the difference sme is makin sure they shoot to kill

Returning fire means everything. Staying alert means everything. To be aware is to be alive. If you on point, a nigga can't just get up on you and do you any kind of way. Here go another example right here. Buddy was alert and didn't let the shooters get up on him. In Chiraq that's what we call #NoLackin

Returning fire can be the difference between someone standing over you and finishing you off and them having to fall back. Dude in the video returned fire on the spot within seconds and that's why he most likely still alive, just saying...

u shouldn't speak on anything street or shooting related if a whole city got over 4000 people shot n only 700 deaths from those people shot then that means people who's shot in that city is more likely to survive being shot return fire means nothing 1 bullet is all it takes to kill any human. 4000 sot 700 deaths look at the difference in other cities ull see like 400 shot 200 plus deaths some be like 100 shot 65 plus deaths u see the difference sme is makin sure they shoot to kill

Returning fire means everything. Staying alert means everything. To be aware is to be alive. If you on point, a nigga can't just get up on you and do you any kind of way. Here go another example right here. Buddy was alert and didn't let the shooters get up on him. In Chiraq that's what we call #NoLackin

Q. wrote:^ article written & all that info was looked up /researched by a crime Analyst(kinda similiar to article a posted awhile ago about cities where ya chances are dying from being shot are higher..due to stats of headshots /chest up are more common in some cities more then others..bmore new orleans topped them city list)

Interesting shit u posted. I know the Newark one is wrong though the body count in Newark "officially" was 90 something but one of the media sites keeping track had it over 100 I think. Newark known for juking stats on body counts I'm sure it's the same for most them cities. Be even more interesting to see the real numbers for all them I doubt Newark is alone in them number games

Q. wrote:^ article written & all that info was looked up /researched by a crime Analyst(kinda similiar to article a posted awhile ago about cities where ya chances are dying from being shot are higher..due to stats of headshots /chest up are more common in some cities more then others..bmore new orleans topped them city list)

Interesting shit u posted. I know the Newark one is wrong though the body count in Newark "officially" was 90 something but one of the media sites keeping track had it over 100 I think. Newark known for juking stats on body counts I'm sure it's the same for most them cities. Be even more interesting to see the real numbers for all them I doubt Newark is alone in them number games

The numbers depend on whether they are talking about murders or homicides. Every mirder is a homicide but not every homicide is counted as a murder. Plus, they just talking about gun murders. It doesn't include stabbing, beatings, arson, etc. For example Chicago had 812 homicides overall but only 762 were counted as murders and 713 were due to shootings.

You dumb niggas will never understand per capita, fuck it baltimore more violent Now close the thread Q you a mod. And Townbizz a Chicago hater anyway he way he can get a chance. His ass was caught lying when Gaylord put hands on Oaklandsfinest

Chiraq Jefe wrote:You dumb niggas will never understand per capita, fuck it baltimore more violent Now close the thread Q you a mod. And Townbizz a Chicago hater anyway he way he can get a chance. His ass was caught lying when Gaylord put hands on Oaklandsfinest

Chiraq Jefe wrote:You dumb niggas will never understand per capita, fuck it baltimore more violent Now close the thread Q you a mod. And Townbizz a Chicago hater anyway he way he can get a chance. His ass was caught lying when Gaylord put hands on Oaklandsfinest

u think a nigga ridin the bus is oaklands fines he did get skrapped tho

Q. wrote:^ article written & all that info was looked up /researched by a crime Analyst(kinda similiar to article a posted awhile ago about cities where ya chances are dying from being shot are higher..due to stats of headshots /chest up are more common in some cities more then others..bmore new orleans topped them city list)

Interesting shit u posted. I know the Newark one is wrong though the body count in Newark "officially" was 90 something but one of the media sites keeping track had it over 100 I think. Newark known for juking stats on body counts I'm sure it's the same for most them cities. Be even more interesting to see the real numbers for all them I doubt Newark is alone in them number games

The numbers depend on whether they are talking about murders or homicides. Every mirder is a homicide but not every homicide is counted as a murder. Plus, they just talking about gun murders. It doesn't include stabbing, beatings, arson, etc. For example Chicago had 812 homicides overall but only 762 were counted as murders and 713 were due to shootings.

I get what your saying but that's not what I'm talking about. They'll try extra hard to just remove bodies from the stats period by playing games like "well he got shot 6 times in the chest in front of everybody but let's run some test for 6 to 9 months before we declare it a murder because he had AIDS and we think it's possible he died from that before he bled out" By then all the stats get turned into the state and FBI so it never makes any official numbers. That's just a made up example but that literally the type of shit they pull. I'm sure Chicago probably does the same thing.

Gaylords been around since the 1930s..... Gaylords stood for Great American Youth Leading Our Rebellion Destroying Spics. They changed the DS part to mean demanding strength when they had latinos, natives joined.

They warred heavily with the Puerto Rican gangs in Humboldt Park, but they lost the war. The Ricans were shooting Gaylords were more about fighting, rumblings, bats, pipes, zip guns, they eventually adapted to shootings, but it was too late. They had no chance, they were in war with 7 different puerto rican mobs, Imperial Gangsters, Eagles, Kings, MLDs, Cobras They eventually lost all their hoods

Returning fire can be the difference between someone standing over you and finishing you off and them having to fall back. Dude in the video returned fire on the spot within seconds and that's why he most likely still alive, just saying...[/quote] u shouldn't speak on anything street or shooting related if a whole city got over 4000 people shot n only 700 deaths from those people shot then that means people who's shot in that city is more likely to survive being shot return fire means nothing 1 bullet is all it takes to kill any human. 4000 sot 700 deaths look at the difference in other cities ull see like 400 shot 200 plus deaths some be like 100 shot 65 plus deaths u see the difference sme is makin sure they shoot to kill[/quote]

If it ain't your time it ain't your time...Shit I know 3 niggas that's been shot in the head and didn't die.